There were a few tidbits of information revealed at last week’s City Council meeting that has not really been highlighted as it stands in the shadows of the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative date that was set. During the meeting as justification for not voting for the February date, Councilmember Lena Tam noted that because of budget issues the City is looking at more job cuts, possible closing of City Hall (one day a week, think furlough), and the loss of an ambulance at the Bay Farm station.
Now, I’ve been a critic of the Firefighters ballot initiative, I don’t really believe in setting minimum staffing levels which doesn’t take into consideration the reality of the budget and even though I live the farthest from the Bay Farm fire station, taking an ambulance out of service is concerning.
Faced with the possibility of losing an ambulance (on top of the Alameda Point station being taken out of service) and the additional cost attributed to the special election, the Firefighters put out a response yesterday to the absurdity that is spending an ungodly amount of money on a special election. Highlights from the press release:
…Estimates place the cost of this special election between $300,000.00 and $400,000.00. The City of Alameda will be responsible for bearing the cost of this election in a fiscal year that has seen the layoff of dozens of employees and severe cuts to City services…
This action comes three months after the same City Council, who due to concerns over funding a special election, voted 4-1 to push the voter driven initiative to establish minimum standards for Fire and Emergency Services to November 2011, over 2-1/2 years. This action has virtually ignored the 9,048 voters who had petitioned the Council to have the opportunity to vote on their level of Fire and Emergency Services.
…While attempting to follow the election code for both the redevelopment measure as well as the public safety measure, the City Council of the City of Alameda may have abused their discretion in the matters and that abuse may be subject to review in the courts.
One possible remedy would be to place both measures before voters at the next consolidated election in June of 2010. In these tough economic times, $300-400,000.00 can go along way towards keeping fire stations open, police officers on the street, storm drains cleared out and libraries open…
Hey, how about the City schedules that Firefighters Initiative for February 2010, since we are expending money anyway, might as well get a twofer.
The main reason for postponing the firefighters’ election was not about the cost of the election. Rather, it was about the city being financially prepared should the firefighters’ measure prevail.
Because the CalPERS numbers would not be available until the spring of 2011 and because the city might put on a competing measure, the city council opted for more time.
Comment by Irene — November 11, 2009 @ 9:05 am
Y’all actually agree with David Howard? He saying the same thing.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — November 11, 2009 @ 11:32 am
The same could be said of the Alameda Point initative on waiting until there is more information on the pending negotiations before placing it on the ballot. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Comment by Daphne V. — November 11, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
#3. At the Nov. 3 city council meeting not one person brought up pending negotiations as a reason for setting any date. The issue was the election law. Period.
Comment by Irene — November 11, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Yes, the issue was election law, nothing else. Because the SunCal initiative is both a charter amendment and an ordinance, the City Attorney determined that it would have to be treated like an ordinance, meaning it has to be voted on within a fairly short time — within 88 to 103 days after the Council vote. (The period could be extened thru April but that wasn’t feasible.) So the Council chose the Feb 3 date because a June date was beyond the time allotted by law. That’s all.
The firefighters’ initiative is a charter amendment alone which doesn’t have the same time restrictions for the vote so the Council put it off. Anyway, they couldn’t move it to Feb 3 now if they wanted to, because they need at least 88 days’ notice to the Registrar and it’s too late for that.
It’s kind of amazing that people are now complaining about the cost of the special election — that would make sense if the Council put this initiative on the ballot, but obviously, they didn’t, SunCal did. That’s why we’re having the special election and why we’re spending the money. (Hello?)
Anyway, the complaints about cost are really a cover for another issue — SunCal wants the vote delayed so they can offset some of the bad publicity they’ve gotten of late, so that explains much of the huffing and puffing over the terrible cost of the election.
Comment by Louise — November 11, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
5. I’ll huff and puff for my own reasons thank you and for me it IS the cost. Damn the initiative passing or not. I happen to trust Lena Tam to have objected for the reason of the cost as stated and not for ulterior motive. Her position on putting the fire fighters initiative in June is consistent.
I understand that the most fiscally responsible position is to have the election after CalPERS stats are in, but the writing is on the wall for this one, the economic news is bad. The unfairness to the fire fighters and signers of the petition out weighs the argument to wait for CalPERS. I say that as as somebody strongly opposed to the initiative on principle.
4. if nobody said anything about other reasons besides election law period, that doesn’t mean that the negotiation argument is not still a valid argument. Barbara Kerr made the very good point that since the initiative is only on the ballot because of the charter change, the charter law should take precedent over the ordinance. Is Ms. Kerr trying to delay so the initiative has a better chance to pass? I doubt that, but if you tar Lena Tam with that brush, please apply it to Ms. Kerr.
I defer to Ms. Highsmith’s expertise over my opinion as a lay person, but you still can’t convince me that her interpretation is the only acceptable interpretation of the law. I’d like to see this appealed, and not as a means to give the initiative better chance to pass, but solely based on the wasted money.
2. about Mr. Howard, even a busted clock is right twice a day.
Comment by M.I. — November 11, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
#6. Well, I’m with YOU on all of what you said. I have said the CC were forced into having no choice, and I totally respected Lena Tam and Marie Gilmore for speaking up about the cost.
I think Richard Bangert is right when he says (at–cough–alamedadailynews) that SunCal is to blame for the special election because they didn’t turn in the signatures (when they could’ve) to have the initiative on the November ballot.
Comment by Jayne Smythe — November 12, 2009 @ 9:53 am